3 ms·

>And here you just changed the subject. You again talk about the wealth gap. The wealth gap and zero sum game are not the same subject. It's the same subject,

>And here you just changed the subject. You again talk about the wealth gap. The wealth gap and zero sum game are not the same subject. It's the same subject, the wealth gap is precisely what's being discussed here. This is my original comment: >The real question is towards what end those resources are being efficiently allocated. Capitalism is an incredibly efficient system for accumulating resources with a tiny percentage of the population at the expense of everyone else. This is precisely why late stage capitalist societies inevitably turn into oligarchies. If anything, you're the one who keeps trying to change the discussion from the original topic. >But buying the state has nothing to do with capitalism -- it has to do with the existence of a state, and the existence of rich people. Rich people exist in every system we ever had in history, so unless you suggest we do something other than a state, all that is left is to strengthen our protection of capitalism with a better constitution. In practice, some systems are much more unequal than others. For example, people like Gates or Bezos simply didn't exist in USSR, there was no generational wealth, and the highest gap in pay was around 10x. Saying that there is no difference between that and what happens in capitalist countries is simply false equivalence. >Source please. But if true, is probably the fault of cronyism. And cronyism is a direct byproduct of capitalism and inequality. And here's a breakdown of prison population by wealth in US. The prisons are predominantly filled with poor people, and you'll be hard pressed to find a CEO going to prison for any crime. Just recently Boeing killed two plane loads full of people due to criminal negligence, nobody's going to jail for that. The CEO got a golden parachute instead. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html >That is the fault of government going hand the hand with the private sector. Without the government, the crisis couldn't have been that big. In short, the government had (1) very very low interest rates and (2) encouraged risky home buying (3) practically insured bad mortgages. Do you think a bank would loan to someone who can't pay back? Only if the government is there to the rescue. And why is the government going hand in hand with the private sector? It's as if, and bear with me here, the private sector bought the government with all that wealth capitalists have accumulated. It amazes me to no end that you're unable to make this connection. >Now, you may reply "they did it because rich people bought them". Maybe, but that's Cronyism, not Capitalism. Capitalism is the engine that creates a system of cronyism because it allows wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few. Again, this is not a complex concept that a fully grown adult should be struggling with. >I get what you're saying, but if you think there's a better way, a truly capitalist system doesn't stop you from implementing it inside of capitalism. So if you want that communist heaven, capitalism saves you the need for revolution, or the need to go find a large-enough desert island. You just build the commie heaven inside the capitalist land. Capitalism was the cause of the revolutions since it's been around. Meanwhile, you might want to read up on what USA does to communist and socialist countries around the world. Go read some history of South Asia, and Latin America for starters. No single socialist regime has been left unmolested in the past century. >Either way, it seems like we are in agreement that Capitalism is not the problem, Cronyism is. No, I'm saying that capitalism is a mechanism that allows wealth to be accumulated with a small percentage of the population, and these people end up running the country as an oligarchy as is the case with US, and other Western regimes right now. I don't think any system that allows large scale inequality is compatible with democracy. Meanwhile, limiting the power of the government achieves the complete opposite of what you're proposing. A democratic government answers to its citizens, while private interests only answer to their owners. Wealth inequality is the root cause for the corruption of the government, and that's what needs to be eliminated to have actual democracy and representation of the people by the government.

oDot 7y ago
>The real question is towards what end those resources are being efficiently allocated. Capitalism is an incredibly efficient system for accumulating resources with a tiny percentage of the population at the expense of everyone else. This is precisely why late stage capitalist societies inevitably turn into oligarchies. "at the expense of everyone else" implies a zero-sum game. Wealth gap, however, can widen even in a positive-sum game. As demonstrated by my iPhone example. I can also create a simplified game that does this. Every turn, player A gets 10 points, and player B gets 1 point. Gap widens, yet all gain. > In practice, some systems are much more unequal than others. For example, people like Gates or Bezos simply didn't exist in USSR, there was no generational wealth, and the highest gap in pay was around 10x. Saying that there is no difference between that and what happens in capitalist countries is simply false equivalence. This may be true if only currency was measured, but wealth is measured with assets and services as well (expenses), and in the USSR there was a ruling class, and those close to it, and they enjoyed much better lives than the common man in the USSR. They had better goods, better services, and they, yes, enjoyed Cronyism. Communism is a very poor example, as there is literally a ruling class the controls other people's lives, which is something I gathered you want to avoid. > And cronyism is a direct byproduct of capitalism and inequality. > And here's a breakdown of prison population by wealth in US. The prisons are predominantly filled with poor people, and you'll be hard pressed to find a CEO going to prison for any crime. Just recently Boeing killed two plane loads full of people due to criminal negligence, nobody's going to jail for that. The CEO got a golden parachute instead. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html > And why is the government going hand in hand with the private sector? It's as if, and bear with me here, the private sector bought the government with all that wealth capitalists have accumulated. It amazes me to no end that you're unable to make this connection. > Capitalism is the engine that creates a system of cronyism because it allows wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few. Again, this is not a complex concept that a fully grown adult should be struggling with. All of these talk about either (1) Cronyism is bad or (2) Capitalism inevitably leads to Cronyism. (1) is something I agree with. (2) You've yet to demonstrate that is _unique_ to capitalism. Can you give me an example of a single country where there isn't a ruling class that enjoys better quality of life and government favors? > Capitalism was the cause of the revolutions since it's been around. Meanwhile, you might want to read up on what USA does to communist and socialist countries around the world. Go read some history of South Asia, and Latin America for starters. No single socialist regime has been left unmolested in the past century. That is Cronyism. Could you stop giving the Cronyisnt aspects of the US as examples of Capitalism? Capitalism calls for Non-aggression, and uses an Army in self-defense only. > No, I'm saying that capitalism is a mechanism that allows wealth to be accumulated with a small percentage of the population, and these people end up running the country as an oligarchy as is the case with US, and other Western regimes right now. I don't think any system that allows large scale inequality is compatible with democracy. > Meanwhile, limiting the power of the government achieves the complete opposite of what you're proposing. A democratic government answers to its citizens, while private interests only answer to their owners. Wealth inequality is the root cause for the corruption of the government, and that's what needs to be eliminated to have actual democracy and representation of the people by the government. Well, we look differently at the role of government. To me, government isn't some tool to force other people. I don't care if it's the few rich forcing the majority middle class, or if it's the majority middle class forcing a rich minority. I am against forcing (using or threatening the use of physical force) other people. This eliminates the "path to Cronyism" you described. When some rich people (not every rich person is bad) will go and ask for artificially low interest rates or for favoring regulation that limits competition, the government will be limited and could not give it to them. Again -- if you believe some Communist or Socialist heaven is better suited to supply everyone's needs, no one is stopping you from building such a thing, as Capitalism lets you live as you wish. If it's as good as you say, most citizens will probably join you anyway. I'm not sure how democratic it'll be, but as long as it's voluntary, enjoy yourselves.

oDot 7y ago

>The real question is towards what end those resources are being efficiently allocated. Capitalism is an incredibly efficient system for accumulating resources with a tiny percentage of the population at the expense of everyone else. This is precisely why late stage capitalist societies inevitably turn into oligarchies. "at the expense of everyone else" implies a zero-sum game. Wealth gap, however, can widen even in a positive-sum game. As demonstrated by my iPhone example. I can also create a simplified game that does this. Every turn, player A gets 10 points, and player B gets 1 point. Gap widens, yet all gain. > In practice, some systems are much more unequal than others. For example, people like Gates or Bezos simply didn't exist in USSR, there was no generational wealth, and the highest gap in pay was around 10x. Saying that there is no difference between that and what happens in capitalist countries is simply false equivalence. This may be true if only currency was measured, but wealth is measured with assets and services as well (expenses), and in the USSR there was a ruling class, and those close to it, and they enjoyed much better lives than the common man in the USSR. They had better goods, better services, and they, yes, enjoyed Cronyism. Communism is a very poor example, as there is literally a ruling class the controls other people's lives, which is something I gathered you want to avoid. > And cronyism is a direct byproduct of capitalism and inequality. > And here's a breakdown of prison population by wealth in US. The prisons are predominantly filled with poor people, and you'll be hard pressed to find a CEO going to prison for any crime. Just recently Boeing killed two plane loads full of people due to criminal negligence, nobody's going to jail for that. The CEO got a golden parachute instead. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html > And why is the government going hand in hand with the private sector? It's as if, and bear with me here, the private sector bought the government with all that wealth capitalists have accumulated. It amazes me to no end that you're unable to make this connection. > Capitalism is the engine that creates a system of cronyism because it allows wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few. Again, this is not a complex concept that a fully grown adult should be struggling with. All of these talk about either (1) Cronyism is bad or (2) Capitalism inevitably leads to Cronyism. (1) is something I agree with. (2) You've yet to demonstrate that is _unique_ to capitalism. Can you give me an example of a single country where there isn't a ruling class that enjoys better quality of life and government favors? > Capitalism was the cause of the revolutions since it's been around. Meanwhile, you might want to read up on what USA does to communist and socialist countries around the world. Go read some history of South Asia, and Latin America for starters. No single socialist regime has been left unmolested in the past century. That is Cronyism. Could you stop giving the Cronyisnt aspects of the US as examples of Capitalism? Capitalism calls for Non-aggression, and uses an Army in self-defense only. > No, I'm saying that capitalism is a mechanism that allows wealth to be accumulated with a small percentage of the population, and these people end up running the country as an oligarchy as is the case with US, and other Western regimes right now. I don't think any system that allows large scale inequality is compatible with democracy. > Meanwhile, limiting the power of the government achieves the complete opposite of what you're proposing. A democratic government answers to its citizens, while private interests only answer to their owners. Wealth inequality is the root cause for the corruption of the government, and that's what needs to be eliminated to have actual democracy and representation of the people by the government. Well, we look differently at the role of government. To me, government isn't some tool to force other people. I don't care if it's the few rich forcing the majority middle class, or if it's the majority middle class forcing a rich minority. I am against forcing (using or threatening the use of physical force) other people. This eliminates the "path to Cronyism" you described. When some rich people (not every rich person is bad) will go and ask for artificially low interest rates or for favoring regulation that limits competition, the government will be limited and could not give it to them. Again -- if you believe some Communist or Socialist heaven is better suited to supply everyone's needs, no one is stopping you from building such a thing, as Capitalism lets you live as you wish. If it's as good as you say, most citizens will probably join you anyway. I'm not sure how democratic it'll be, but as long as it's voluntary, enjoy yourselves.